22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4cb,MEMORANDUM Richard Schoenfeld appeals the district court’s holding on summary judgment that his debts were nondischargeable because his actions constituted defalcation under 11 U.S.C. § 528 (a)(4). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and review summary judgment orders de novo. Szajer v. City of Los Angeles, 632 F.3d 607, 610 (9th Cir.2011). Although the district court applied the correct law at the time, during the pen-dency of this appeal, the United States Supreme Court decided Bullock v. BankChampaign, N.A., — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1754 , 185 L.Ed.2d 922 (2013). Bullock clarified the requisite intent for defalcation under § 523(a)(4) and effectively abrogated Ninth Circuit law, which formerly did not require a particular state of mind. Because the district court did not have an opportunity to assess defalcation under Bullock , we vacate the judgment and remand to the district court for reconsideration in the first instance. At this time, we need not reach any of the other issues Schoenfeld raised on appeal. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. VACATED and REMANDED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4f8,

MEMORANDUM

Richard Schoenfeld appeals the district court’s holding on summary judgment that his debts were nondischargeable because his actions constituted defalcation under 11 U.S.C. § 528 (a)(4). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and review summary judgment orders de novo. Szajer v. City of Los Angeles, 632 F.3d 607, 610 (9th Cir.2011).

Although the district court applied the correct law at the time, during the pen-dency of this appeal, the United States Supreme Court decided Bullock v. BankChampaign, N.A., — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1754 , 185 L.Ed.2d 922 (2013). Bullock clarified the requisite intent for defalcation under § 523(a)(4) and effectively abrogated Ninth Circuit law, which formerly did not require a particular state of mind. Because the district court did not have an opportunity to assess defalcation under Bullock , we vacate the judgment and remand to the district court for reconsideration in the first instance. At this time, we need not reach any of the other issues Schoenfeld raised on appeal. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.